Who do people use Linux for servers instead of OpenBSD?

who do people use Linux for servers instead of OpenBSD?
Linux is totally controlled by big corporations and low level programmers
Google is 100% controlling Debian and putting backdoors in the kernel
zdnet.com/article/google-moves-to-debian-for-in-house-linux-desktop/

Other urls found in this thread:

sel4.systems/
github.com/dropbox
meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-01-16-17.58.log.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/threads.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/threads.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00262.html
lwn.net/Articles/578210/
lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00036.html
bsdmag.org/randy_w_3/,
ewontfix.com/14/
github.com/rkt/rkt/issues/576
bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350450
lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00108.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

OpenBSD doesn't even have ZFS (inb4 someone posts the April fools joke)

>Google is 100% controlling Debian and putting backdoors in the kernel
Because they made Debian derivative?

>derivative
Except they control the debian board and they choose their priorities

There's no such thing as the "debian board". There's a Debian project leader (currently Chris Lamb, not connected to Google in any way) and then there are developers who do as they wish, there's also the Debian Technical Committee which has very little power and is only used in case developers disagree with each other and ask for a resolution and as far as I know there's one Google Employee in that committee which is the lady that works on that Debian derivative Google uses.

Basically you're full of shit.

if you followed the adoption of systemd you would know that it was external forces that made the decision. Besides google employees commit kernel updates a lot of times(though they claim they are just independent)

is there a message you are trying to convey with that picture? its lost on me

I followed it very closely. There was a public discussion, a public vote, and systemd won. People like Bdale who have worked on Debian since it has existed voted in favor of systemd.

>Besides google employees commit kernel updates a lot of times(though they claim they are just independent)
And what is wrong with that as long as their contributions are in a free license? Almost every single major tech company has made contributions to the Linux kernel.

I think you are one of those people that think that OpenBSD is some sort of magic OS that has no bugs and is impenetrable, their claims that they haven't had remote holes in the default install in years are true but it's also because their default install includes nothing, from the moment you install web facing services you are almost as vulnerable as Linux or FreeBSD. OpenBSD is great and it is more secure than default Linux/FreeBSD but it's not a panacea.

>a public vote
Two guys working for big corporations voted. This was a fraud everyone knows it

How can you follow it closely when there's over a million unaudited lines of code and keeps getting bigger

He is a shill or Ian himself.
Ian simply sent an email saying
>The technical committee is proposing the adoption of systemd to be the default and only init system for the next stable
after 1004+ replies saying how bad it was he said
>ok then it's decided it's good for everyone we adopt systemd
Then he waited until the process was over to resign. As a bonus for his dirty work he got a job in some big corporation selling spyware for windows clients
One of the idiots who voted for Systemd is a corporate shill who worked(work) for HP. Bdale also had the opportunity to delay the adoption to further discuss the subject but he simply forced
>er 6.3.2, I use my casting vote to choose D as the winner. We exercise our power to decide in cases of overlapping jurisdiction (6.1.2) by asserting that the default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should be systemd.

Did you follow urxvt or xorg or whatever else closely?

Debian and almost every Linux distro isn't doing a highest degree of security possible circus where every snippet of code must be accounted for and audited for risks by 10 different companies.

You fix what's insecure or buggy, that's all.

stop making me more and more paranoid day by day, also
>backdoors
>in free software

>Linux isn't doing a highest degree of security possible circus where every snippet of code must be accounted for and audited for risks by 10 different companies.
It motherfucking should.
sel4.systems/

> m...muh systemd
Debian has discussed this for a long ass time (like 2011 - 2015 or something), and the drama and bullshit with no decisions cost them quite a lot of developers.

Good that they decided on updating the init to something less shit.

People don't like systemd because the pro-systemd fags are always liars and rewrite history
The voting process was garbage. 2 corporate shills (+1full time Intel employee) decided that systemd should be default and there would be no discussion on the matter
3 of them left Debian after the process was finished. If they loved systemd and debian so much I wonder why they left... interesting all 3 who left got jobs in corporations that are unrelated to security, free software or anything. HP, Dropbox and one spyware seller I don't want to name it. They have to hide this piece of history to cover for Debian's kikery
Security is non-existant on Debian and very minimal on the kernel. You are safer using Zorin OS or Linux Lite than using Debian

> It motherfucking should.
Wrong, you should maintain a fork that does if you care.

>If they loved systemd and debian so much I wonder why they left
My guess: Because they got fed up with being insulted by thousands of dumbass adults that somehow saw and see systemd as hostile. And all the people that hate changing any habits.

There are enough like that around on Cred Forums, imagine how many might be on Debian.

> unrelated to security, free software or anything
They're heavy Linux users, aren't they?

Also, for Dropbox, immediately:
github.com/dropbox

Why can't cucktards understand how copyleft is conducive to project development?

>Because they got fed up with being insulted by thousands of dumbass
then why they only left after the process was finished and completed? If they were planning to resign during the controversy they would left in the process and let others decide...
there were 8 people. 4 voted against it and 4 pro-system d. The same idiot who voted for systemd voted again. He voted twice for systemd. He had the option to call for more discussion but he thought it was a good idea to adopt systemd and leave debian 40 days later
>They're heavy Linux users
So?

brainlet detected

> If they were planning to resign during the controversy
I'm guessing they were just tired of it towards the end and then with the stupid ass reaction.

I recall some posted their reasons, go read.

> He voted twice for systemd
He didn't *just* vote twice - it's called a casting vote and part of debian's process.

> He had the option to call for more discussion
Lel, more of that wouldn't have helped for shit after that much discussion.

There just wasn't any project that had the absolute majority, so the one with a simple majority by casting vote won. Simple.

>I'm guessing they were just tired of it towards the end and then with the stupid ass reaction.
>Hey let's force debian to use systemd and leave the fucks alone and get a good job in the industry
> it's called a casting vote and part of debian's process.
a.k.a voting twice when he had the option to delay the choice of systemd or at least provide the community explanations why systemd had to be forced to 8 and 9+ releases

List the 4 guys who voted pro-systemd explanations why they were choosing it. There is none. The best thing you can find is a 4 line text from one of them saying ''dude systemv is too old lmao''

>a.k.a voting twice
No, he voted once, it stalemated, and then the casting vote decided it according to process.

> delay the choice of systemd
If there was something better there would have been years to bring it forward and get that one a better vote.

> Hurr durr delay more, cause more developers to quit in frustration, get no result
I'd not have done it either. Again: There were years to bring something better, but it turns out systemd is the best choice.

degenerates on top.
slut bottom.
and?

PS: You can be dumb and because both are called "vote" twice, but it's really making the decision.

Other languages call it making the decision rather than "casting [the decisive] vote". Doesn't matter for shit, it's the earlier votes that are regular and the latter is just the decision.

>he voted once
and then decided in favor of systemd which he previously supported.

Tell me the explanation for the ''Technical Committee decided to adopt systemd". There is none. They provided zero. They simply said they were going to vote it and fuck the goyim

Holy shit, you are an idiot. Idiot as the claim about the fbi backdoors in your meme os.

> and then decided in favor of systemd which he previously supported
No shit. Systemd got half the votes and is better (according to what he and I think). Nobody came up with anything better after years.

Whereas the status quo never was voted on. You can pretend that maybe half the votes were to stick with the status quo, but that's not a given. And even if it was - it's simply that the other half won.

> There is none
Years of discussion, go read.

>according to what he
Link me the explanation on why Ian or the others were in favor of systemd
>Years of discussion, go read.
There is none. They provided the community zero explanations about the process, the transition and refused to answer questions about how to transition to systemd.

There was Upstart, actually.

I never understood why the Debian discussions were about systemd vs SysV when in reality all the big distros (Ubuntu, RHEL, SUSE) were using Upstart.

You’re right, the only truly secure OS is TempleOS. Make the switch now!

Upstart was abandonware, though any idiot could pick it up again.

Upstart was the second option but some dev wanted to discuss the issue more other than force them to accept upstart. But as we saw later the shills thought it was better to force systemd other than consider upstart (a vote systemd vs upstart) or discuss the subject

>the init system must be cutting edge
the state of nuLinux

> Link me the explanation on why Ian or the others were in favor of systemd
That is something you care about, go look for it yourself.

I don't really need anyone to explain why systemd is better. It's pretty damn obvious to me, much better diagnostics and tooling.

> They provided the community zero explanations about the process
The process was essentially discussions happen on debian-devel and elswhere, tech-ctte decides according to its rules, done.

Again, go read if you want to know more. No, there aren't any 1000 page preparatory documents from / for the committee. Debian isn't the European Union.

>There was Upstart, actually.
Yea, also discussed.

> must be cutting edge
Never said that. I said they simply picked the best init for the broad use cases Debian covers.

how's shepherd ?

>That is something you care about
There is none you idiot. They never discussed why systemd was better. Any serious committee must write something to give people their reasons for choosing X or Y. You know the election was a fraud and the process was shady. You simply think systemd is better but that's not an argument in this thread.

the message is OP is a faggot

Large corporations are not all inherently evil. Google's business model has been observed to be threatened as emerging innovation begins to materialize.

> They never discussed why systemd was better.
Pft.
meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-01-16-17.58.log.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/threads.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/threads.html
lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00262.html

Trivially found even with fucking news articles on the internet. Of course there's a lot more where that came from.

> You simply think systemd is better but that's not an argument in this thread.
Maybe not, but ultimately that would settle the argument if I was deciding on the tie as a chairman of an associated committee.

More to the point, its super easy in general to understand why they ended up choosing systemd. The other options were just more shit.

The threads you linked are unrelated to Debian decision to move to systemd. It's simply community discussion. The discussion about systemd is Bug#727708 and there is no reason explaining why they wanted to change the init system or why they would vote for systemd

*hug*

That and the long series of more threads on mailing lists and IRC and what not are that open discussion you wanted, where the CTTE members and everyone else brought their opinions.

> The discussion about systemd is Bug#727708
You can count that one too, but that's definitely not it alone, no.

You get to read it all if you want to know. Which apparently you don't, you just want to complain about not getting the whole discussion a lot more on a silver plate than the people who discussed got it themselves, and complain that there surely was no discussion then.

if you wanted to stay on point and not post things you are familiar with, you would post this: lwn.net/Articles/578210/

as I said before this is the only time 1 one of the 8 members of the comittee ''explained'' their preference for systemd. His point is:

>SuSe Red Hat are moving to systemd that means it will have better support
>gnome works better with systemd

In point 3.4 he made a very amateur observation without technical details
>I'm concerned that, if we adopt upstart, in two or three years we'll end ... moving to systemd

But that was in 2013... systemd was (and it still) a mess and I'm not sure why in 2013 he thought systemd was better. I can't know because he didn't say.
>It will have better support thanks to red hat and SuSe
this is not an argument

The committee initially proposed to support non-systemd but as they are kike lovers just 2 days before they resigned they made sure that the mandatory support for non-systemd would be dropped. That means their lied and after they resigned they didn't have to deal with the consequences

Ian's arguments were destroyed in this post
lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00036.html

As I said before and as you can read the only arguments they had pro-systemd were
>GNOME systemd exclusivity (or semi-exclusivity support)
>Red Hat support

Steve Langasek explained why systemd was dangerous in 2014 and in the discussion you can see his surprise to see Ian pushing default systemd so fast and so quick... he even convinced them to delay the project because Ian wanted to put systemd very fast (like in 12 days).

Pic is from 2013. Obviously Lennart had no idea about what he was doing. Why 1 year later they decided to adopt systemd is a mystery. Even Arch in 2012 systemd support was terrible and it was easy to remove it. As of today it's quite hard and 99% of the time it will break your system (your only alternative is to download arch without systemd already compiled)

> you would post this
No, I wouldn't. I gave various debian linkage to where the discussion happened, that user claimed never happened.

> In point 3.4 he made a very amateur observation
Yea, well, Upstart was discontinued, so he was apparently amateurishly right.

But there were about a bazillion points raised, do you want to focus your attention equally to every point "amateurishly" raised against it? Is that settling anything?

> systemd was (and it still) a mess
No. It worked alright from ~release and just got better. It still works. The internet is up and companies and users obviously don't pay over 90 billions to mitigate systemd issues.

>The committee initially proposed to support non-systemd but as they are kike lovers just 2 days before they resigned they made sure that the mandatory support for non-systemd would be dropped
Lel. That doesn't work out for shit, Debian can decide at any time now to support other inits as they please.

> Ian's arguments were destroyed in this post
That destroys absolutely nothing (not even one minor point, much less the whole damn year long discussion about what's the better option), and the response makes complete sense.

> Steve Langasek explained why systemd was dangerous in 2014
And Poettering and many others explained why it's needed or an improvement.

And it turns out consensus is with that guy, as offensive to political correctness - tards he might have been.

Of course you "people with a cause" (that is to complain about systemd, not develop anything better yourself) making up conspiracy theories why it won, but the simpler reason is that it was more competent and easier to implement functions with that distros need.

You answered too fast. Read my post again and try to refute something
Your whole comment is based on your personal feeling about systemd being better.
And yes, that comment destroyed Ian's argument
Ian's argument was
>Gnome is sytemd exclusive (or becoming systemd exclusive) so we must adopt systemd

On a side note, Russ Allbery made a great argument in favor of systemd compared to upstart
>the systemd community seems more enthusiastic
That's a literal word from him. What a great mind. As explained here: bsdmag.org/randy_w_3/, here: ewontfix.com/14/ and shown here: github.com/rkt/rkt/issues/576 and here: bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350450
systemd is the most buggy piece of software in all Linux history. It's by far the most unfinished and unstable init system.
If in 2014 Debian dev said
>the community enthusiasm is what makes systemd better
..... as if it would fix all the issues, time has proven he was wrong.
>Debian can decide at any time now to support other inits as they please.
They can't and they aren't: systemd-free on Debian is not working that's why you need an entire new distro to remove it (like Devuan) because they have to deal with thousands of issues that systemd exclusivity has caused(enforced by Debian).

>there were 8 people
having an even number of people on a committee that exists to make decisions when developers can't decide. yeah that makes sense.

>Gnome is sytemd exclusive (or becoming systemd exclusive) so we must adopt systemd
It's more "we should adopt systemd before the next release so we don't get problems with GNOME". And the other guy essentially complaints "well, we don't have much time to finalize this resolution, should we do this before this release is out?". To which Ian's answer is: "Yea, if nobody fixes the dependency it might be easier to use systemd than to drop GNOME or somesuch." lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00108.html

Basically one more point for systemd, but there were many reasons before.

> That's a literal word from him.
And he was even right, the systemd community is more enthusiastic and got more done than the upstart community?

No, this is NOT the entirety of the arguments brought forward, and you seem to conveniently ignore a trillion dumb arguments against systemd or dumb arguments for something else.

The devs had to guess and evaluate what would be a good course of action, and they did.

> time has proven he was wrong.
Fuck no, he was right. What the fuck? The upstart community is NOT working more on it than the systemd community on systemd.

There's the chairman's decision in case of a tie. Yes, that's how it works in that case.

Upstart was only discontinued thanks to Debian's decision to move to systemd.
Staying with Upstart would have forced Canonical to recompile and patch every fucking package to support it, since systemd is cancer and removing it would break the system.

There was no reason to use systemd over Upstart. Upstart is easier to maintain than systemd while also being mostly compatible with sysV.

>There was no reason to use systemd over Upstart.
Yea, there was. Systemd was better written, solved more issues, allowed for more configurations (you know, booting your machine image off a network over tftp or whatever).

Upstart was the thing virtually no one else could or wanted to adapt. Maybe you can find discussions from various other distros, but roughly said: Just about everyone not on Ubuntu's team hated that turd.

It also fell through extremely quickly on my evaluation on Gentoo. Systemd worked great and even solved a few issues a bit better than even the quite nice OpenRC - even very early on when a lot of programs didn't have service files yet.

>who do people use Linux for servers instead of OpenBSD?
>Linux is totally controlled by big corporations and low level programmers
You answered your own question.

>Yea, there was. Systemd was better written
Not really. Had and has a lot of issues. Not to mention, being such a gigantic mess makes it hard to debug and hard to maintain.
>solved more issues, allowed for more configurations (you know, booting your machine image off a network over tftp or whatever).
Complete niche setups.
>Upstart was the thing virtually no one else could or wanted to adapt.
Except Red Hat and SUSE.
>It also fell through extremely quickly on my evaluation on Gentoo. Systemd worked great and even solved a few issues a bit better than even the quite nice OpenRC - even very early on when a lot of programs didn't have service files yet.
That's just an anecdote.

>their default install includes nothing
are you high? or do you just have no fucking clue what it is you're talking about?

>from the moment you install web facing services
so you mean right after the default install right? OpenBSD comes with it's own web server, mail server, NTP server, load balancer, ssh, ssl, firewall, cvs, vpn, and router software, among a ton of other things by default. It has a small footprint, but it's by no means "minimal". So you're full of shit.

OpenBSD is slower than Linux by literally one order of magnitude.
Its kernel is still largely single-threaded. It's basically technology from the 80s with some exploit mitigation stuff on top. Nice userland though.

If you want performance and no SJW drama use DragonFly, but it has virtually no support since no one is using it.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

yeah, western civilization is dying, breed with asians. You are welcome

OP Linux is the defacto OS for servers. If it works, don't change it.

Linux on top
>commonly used, degenerate, prone to infection. Chaotic and disorganized.

BSD bottom
>unknown to the masses, superior, aesthetic but you will never use it.